Thursday, April 29, 2010

Private Sellers

Thanks to Laci the Dog who dedicated this video to the folks who didn't think the Tracy Ullman skit was realistic. I'd like to dedicate it to all those who hate the undercover camera bit. I challenge you to look beyond that and consider what is revealed.

What do you think? Are many of the so-called private sellers really in the business of selling guns? Shouldn't those guys be subject to the rules like everybody else?

19 comments:

Again, I say if the gun controllers have such a problem with private sellers, they shouldn't have helped increase the price of an FFL by 600%.

Lower the price of an FFL back down to $30. That way private sellers can become licensed dealers, do background checks, and be held to the same standards as any other dealer, thus eliminating the "loophole".

One problem I have with these videos is that they are so heavily edited that there is no guarantee as to what you are seeing.

For instance, the guy said he sold 348. 348 what? The video editor would like you to believe it was assault weapons yet there was nothing on the table but one bolt action rifle and a bunch of knives.

I'm still not convinced any crimes were committed in these "stings" that resulted in no criminal charges or arrests.

I'm not going to pretend that there are not some out there breaking the law and engaging in the business without a license. I have no doubt that each of the shows mentioned may have contained one or more of them but I have yet to see any evidence and the purported videos are so badly chopped that they could be showing anything.

Yes, it's illegal but the chances of them getting caught is practically nil.

Further, most FFLs will happily sell a gun to a known straw purchaser for a small fee. Again, the chances of getting caught are about none. NRA Member Emeritus Tim McVeigh made a living doing exactly this; he'd work with FFLs as a gun purchaser on behalf of those who couldn't pass a background check or didn't want to.

MikeB, I am responding to the "Meaning of Draconian" thread here because that one might be a little stale.

MikeB: "TS told us about the California gun owner who failed to turn his allen wrench a couple times and became a felon as a result. "I’d call that “cruel”. How about you, MikeB?"

I wouldn't say "cruel" as much as "excessive." I'd even call it abuse of power on the part of the cop."

I read about this on a police officer’s forum. Many of the other cops were calling him out on it, calling it “excessive” and mean. The thing is, he was following the letter of the law, and I have a much bigger problem with the law that allows him to make that arrest, than the cop who didn’t give the gun owner a pass. This is why we protest laws like this. We shouldn’t have to leave it up to the discretion of a cop to be a “nice guy”. I wouldn’t think CA’s “assault weapons ban” is draconian if it weren’t for the fact that they make it a felony. That is life altering. Not only do you go to jail, but you lose your gun rights forever, lose your job, lose your whole career, hell- maybe even lose your marriage... that’s draconian.

"Again, I say if the gun controllers have such a problem with private sellers, they shouldn't have helped increase the price of an FFL by 600%.

Lower the price of an FFL back down to $30. That way private sellers can become licensed dealers, do background checks, and be held to the same standards as any other dealer, thus eliminating the "loophole"."

So, what is the price now, $180 (6 x 30)? Yeah, that's a show stopper alright. Never mind the issue of whether what the guy is doing is legal as far as the firearms business is concerned, the OH sales tax people will put this guy in jail for not paying them their share.

To claim that gun control laws are responsible for the loophole in the first place is a big stretch, if you ask me.

There is no loophole. You have admitted as much in previous posts of yours. The only people calling it loopholes are those that are ignorant on the subject or those perpetuating the "lie told often enough". Which are you?

RuffRidr says, "You have admitted as much in previous posts of yours."

I believe what I've done is admitted "loophole" is not the best word to use to describe what we all understand to mean no background checks needed on private sales. What you seem to like doing is keep bringing us back to the beginning and hang up the whole discussion on the word.

I have to admit that Mike W. has a point, as much as I hate to do that.

If there were no laws, there could be no exceptions or "loopholes" if you will.

"AztecRed's remark is not so much an exaggeration as a distortion. To claim that gun control laws are responsible for the loophole in the first place is a big stretch, if you ask me."

It's not much of a stretch at all.

Years ago, anyone with a clean record could get an FFL for a relatively low cost. If those people could get FFLs today, they would essentially be licensed dealers and have access to the NICS.

However, the gun controllers along with the support of certain greedy gun dealers campaigned to make FFLs more expensive and harder to qualify for, leading to a lot of people losing their FFL, leaving those individuals no other choice but to sell guns as private sellers. The very private sellers the gun controllers now have a problem with.

Had the gun controllers not campaigned to make FFLs all but impossible to get, there would be no excuse to be a private seller. Anyone who wanted to sell guns and do it on the up-and-up could get an FFL and do the background checks that the gun controllers desperately want.

That's why I don't believe the gun controllers want to close the "loophole" for the sake of safety. If they did, they wouldn't have created the "loophole" to begin with.